I was under the impression that he did talk about "created grace", so I took a look (not a very thorough look tbh). I managed to find "Is there created grace in Christ?" Now I haven't analysed this very thoroughly, and I can think of a number of possible alternatives (I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that "created grace" is actually a bad translation of something Aquinas said -- just consider situation with the phrase "praying to the saints"). But it appears to go against the idea that 'The phrase "created grace" comes later' than Aquinas.

Torrell would agree with you. I suppose what I was remembering was the text of a lecture where the instructor indicated that the phrase created grace was never used by St. Thomas without the explanation that is offered in Torrell's text below. I went back and listened to the pertinent section of the lecture and found that I had conflated two ideas and drawn the wrong conclusion. Nevertheless the notion of created grace is not what Orthodox believers generally say that it is in fact:

I've heard it stated this way: we can know God so much as He reveals Himself to us, be we cannot know God as He knows Himself.

Not even in heaven when we are glorified, our minds are restored and we are in perfect union with God?

Right. Not even in heaven. We remain creatures and in that way there will always be something of the divinity that can neither be experienced nor known.

We have a creature's share in the divine life.

M.

Why wouldn't God want us to have this knowledge and experience?

As Mary said, it's not about want. It's simply a limitation of our being. Humans and angels alike do not and will not ever fully know God. For God to make it so would destroy what we are, created beings.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

The Catholic Church says that the petrine ministry, the power and authority of the office, is of divine origin. Protestants and Orthodox say that is a load of crap.

But that idea certainly can be drawn from a reading of scripture.

I'd certainly like to see the basis in Scripture from which one can assert without fear of contradiction that the conciliar path is the ONLY path...

M.

The notion that a universal papacy "can be drawn from a reading of scripture" -though inferred and/or claimed enough among amateur apologists- is an anachronistic myth held by not a single major contemporary scholar. No informed major historian today believes such an office even existed in the earliest centuries of Christianity, even in Rome -yes that includes intellectually honest and/or responsible contemporary Roman Catholic historians.[1]

The *actual* petrine ministry as it was understood in earliest Christianity is another thing entirely. The earliest witnesses conceived of it as operative in all bishops, as St. Cyprian and other early witnesses and all Orthodox writers who address it maintain. This historic early view of the petrine ministry in fact has continued unbroken after the Schism and to this present day. It is amateur Roman Catholic apologists who here as elsewhere wish to maintain a POV which was actually unknown, unheard of, and unspoken of in earliest Christianity even in Rome (I use the phrase amateur Roman Catholic apologists to demarcate this group -so furiously active on the internet and in print- from academic Roman Catholic historians and theologians who these days sound more like the mainstream scholars on such matters).

I'd certainly like to see the basis in Scripture from which one can assert without fear of contradiction that the conciliar path is the ONLY path...

M.

It is you rather than the Orthodox who sound like the Protestant fundamentalist -on the basis of scripture indeed! As if the position you advocate even existed in either early post-apostolic Christianity or scripture._________________________[1] There was nothing corresponding to even the level of Metropolitan Bishop until the Council of Nicea in AD 325. An outline of the usual picture was given here; http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,42259.msg694815.html#msg694815

I've heard it stated this way: we can know God so much as He reveals Himself to us, be we cannot know God as He knows Himself.

Not even in heaven when we are glorified, our minds are restored and we are in perfect union with God?

Right. Not even in heaven. We remain creatures and in that way there will always be something of the divinity that can neither be experienced nor known.

We have a creature's share in the divine life.

M.

Why wouldn't God want us to have this knowledge and experience?

As Mary said, it's not about want. It's simply a limitation of our being. Humans and angels alike do not and will not ever fully know God. For God to make it so would destroy what we are, created beings.

It is not just a limitation, it is also a gift from God to be unique, distinct, and independent. If we were all particles of God as the Brahmans suggest, then our own individual personalities would merely be circumstantial and temporal, our identity, our nature, would be inconsequential in the scheme of eternity. However, by the Grace of God, He has created us all as individuals, who exist as individuals, while sharing a common human nature, we are individual souls. This is how we can exist, contemplate, and either accept or reject God's reality at any given moment. If in Heaven we were to completely "know" God then we would lose this distinction, we would no longer remain independent organs of the Body of Christ, and we would be like the Brahmans say, "A drop of the Godhead coming together as many drops of water form the oneness of the Seas." It is a gift from God, that through the Resurrection, we are allowed to exist by His Will (again we are not self-existing even as spirits) for the potential of Eternity, as ourselves and all that entails. We do not merge with the Godhead, we remain our distinctive human nature, sanctified and glorified just as Jesus Christ by the Union as perfected human nature. So our distinction from God is not strictly a limitation or a punishment, rather it is a wonderful gift from God, the very gift of life. We return the favor through worship, gratitude, and love to God.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

How exactly would our knowing and experiencing God fully necessarily mean that we fully merge into Him in such a way that we are no longer individuals? I'm sorry but to me this all sounds very speculative.

I've heard it stated this way: we can know God so much as He reveals Himself to us, be we cannot know God as He knows Himself.

Not even in heaven when we are glorified, our minds are restored and we are in perfect union with God?

Right. Not even in heaven. We remain creatures and in that way there will always be something of the divinity that can neither be experienced nor known.

We have a creature's share in the divine life.

M.

Why wouldn't God want us to have this knowledge and experience?

There are laws of the universe. God cannot contradict them. He made us creatures. We remain creatures. It is not about "want"...It is about "is".

So you're saying that an all powerful God is limited by laws of the universe...laws that He himself created?

After explaining the idea that Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, whereas we can be adopted children of God, C.S. Lewis addresses the question of why God did not simply "beget many sons at the outset":

Quote

All Christians are agreed that there is, in the full and original sense, only one "Son of God." If we insist on asking "But could there have been many?" we find ourselves in very deep water. Have the words "Could have been" any sense at all when applied to God? You can say that one particular finite thing "could have been" different from what it is, because it would have been different if something else had been different, and the something else would have been different if some third thing had been different, and so on. (The letters on this page would have been red if the printer had used red ink, and he would have used red ink if he had been instructed to, and so on.) But when you are talking about God-i.e. about the rock bottom, irreducible Fact on which all other facts depend- it is nonsensical to ask if It could have been otherwise. It is what It is, and there is an end of the matter.

-Mere Christianity

P.S. Thanks, Wyatt, for this rare opportunity to bring in Lewis. (And take that anyone who thought that Anglicans never did anything worthwhile.)

"But we say that we know our God from His operations, But do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, But His essence remains beyond our reach." -St. Basilhttp://www.voskrese.info/spl/basil234.html

His essence and His energies are not two separate things. Not even St. Gregory goes that far...

M.

St. Gregory writes:

"According to the true faith of God's Church which by His grace we hold, God possess inherent energy that makes Him manifest and is in this respect distinct from His essence..." (Philokalia: The Complete Texts, Vol. 4, p. 411)

IF they were indeed...in reality...two separate things then you would actually have a created reality in the energies...

M.

St. Gregory continues:

"Because those diseased in soul with Akindynos's delusions say that the energy that is distinct from God's essence is created, they conclude that God's creative power is created. For it is impossible to act and create without an energy, just as it is impossible to exist without existence. Therefore just as one cannot say that God's existence is created and at the same time affirm that His being is uncreated, so also one cannot say that God's energy is created and at the same time affirm that his power to act and create is uncreated" (ibid, p. 412)

ESSENCE AND ENERGIESTo indicate the two “poles” of God’s relationship to us —unknown yet well known, hidden yet revealed— the Orthodox tradition draws a distinction between the essence, nature or inner being of God, on the one hand, and his energies, operations or acts of power, on the other.

“He is outside all things according to his essence,” writes St Athanasius, “but he is in all things through his acts of power.”12 “We know the essence through the energy”, St Basil affirms. “No one has ever seen the essence of God, but we believe in the essence because we experience the energy.”13 By the essence of God is meant his otherness, by the energies his nearness. Because God is a mystery beyond our understanding, we shall never know his essence or inner being, either in this life or in the Age to come. If we knew the divine essence, it would follow that we knew God in the same way as he knows himself; and this we cannot ever do, since he is Creator and we are created. But, while God’s inner essence is for ever beyond our comprehension, his energies, grace, life and power fill the whole universe, and are directly accessible to us.

The essence, then, signifies the radical transcendence of God; the energies, his immanence and omnipresence. When Orthodox speak of the divine energies, they do not mean by this an emana­tion from God, an “intermediary” between God and man, or a “thing” or “gift” that God bestows. On the contrary, the energies are God himself in his activity and self-manifestation. When a man knows or participates in the divine energies, he truly knows or participates in God himself, so far as this is possible for a created being. But God is God, and we are human; and so, while he possesses us, we cannot in the same way possess him.

Just as it would be wrong to think of the energies as a “thing” bestowed on us by God, so it would be equally misleading to regard the energies as a “part” of God. The Godhead is simple and indivisible, and has no parts. The essence signifies the whole God as he is in himself; the energies signify the whole God as he is in action. God in his entirety is completely present in each of his divine energies. Thus the essence-energies distinction is a way of stating simultaneously that the whole God is inaccessible, and that the whole God in his outgoing love has rendered himself accessible to man.

By virtue of this distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies, we are able to affirm the possibility of a direct or mystical union between man and God—what the Greek Fathers term the theosis of man, his “deification”—but at the same time we exclude any pantheistic identification between the two: for man participates in the energies of God, not in the essence. There is union, but not fusion or confusion. Although “oned” with the di­vine, man still remains man; he is not swallowed up or annihilated, but between him and God there continues always to exist an “I— Thou” relationship of person to person.

Such, then, is our God: unknowable in his essence, yet known in his energies; beyond and above all that we can think or ex­press, yet closer to us than our own heart. Through the apophatic way we smash in pieces all the idols or mental images that we form of him, for we know that all are unworthy of his surpassing greatness. Yet at the same time, through our prayer and through our active service in the world, we discover at every moment his divine energies, his immediate presence in each person and each thing. Daily, hourly we touch him. We are, as Francis Thompson said, “in no strange land.” All around us is the “many-splen-doured thing”; Jacob’s ladder is “pitched betwixt heaven and Charing Cross”:

O world invisible, we view thee,O world intangible, we touch thee,O world unknowable, we know thee,Inapprehensible, we clutch thee.

In the words of John Scotus Eriugena, “Every visible or invisible creature is a theophany or appearance of God.” The Christian is the one who, wherever he looks, sees God every­where and rejoices in him. Not without reason did the early Christians attribute to Christ this saying: “Lift the stone and you will find me; cut the wood in two and there am I.”

And so we have the problem: it seems like the priority within the RCC is the magisterium, which can both pronounce and exempt dogmas, enforcing them here but permit their renunciation elsewhere. So, a RCC priest may serve in a Latin Rite parish for many years and utter the filioque as fact, but then be reassigned to an Byz-Rite Catholic parish and skip over that dogma thus rejecting it.

This is where a huge portion of the problem lies. There is no "magisterium" as in an office or organization in the Catholic Church.

The magisterial charge is the charge to go and make disciples. In order to do that the Apostles and those who came after were given the Spirit led power and authority to discern and teach the truths of revelation.

I find it difficult to believe that Orthodoxy does not claim such a charge for itself.

HOW that magisterial charge is executed and whether or not there's room for discussion on points of doctrine/truth and their expression is what we are really talking about here.

Dogma is a manner of defining that which is already recognized as truth. It is not some super-Truth or hyper-Truth that trumps all other truths. The truth of revelation is the truth.

The Catholic Church says that the petrine ministry, the power and authority of the office, is of divine origin. Protestants and Orthodox say that is a load of crap.

But that idea certainly can be drawn from a reading of scripture.

I'd certainly like to see the basis in Scripture from which one can assert without fear of contradiction that the conciliar path is the ONLY path...

Perhaps you are not seeing my point. The problem we see is that the Pope grants the Eastern Catholics to maintain Orthodox dogmatic theology, which contradicts Rome's dogmas. It seems to us, through cause and effect, that the priority is not in the theology but in the authority.

And so we have the problem: it seems like the priority within the RCC is the magisterium, which can both pronounce and exempt dogmas, enforcing them here but permit their renunciation elsewhere. So, a RCC priest may serve in a Latin Rite parish for many years and utter the filioque as fact, but then be reassigned to an Byz-Rite Catholic parish and skip over that dogma thus rejecting it.

This is where a huge portion of the problem lies. There is no "magisterium" as in an office or organization in the Catholic Church.

The magisterial charge is the charge to go and make disciples. In order to do that the Apostles and those who came after were given the Spirit led power and authority to discern and teach the truths of revelation.

I find it difficult to believe that Orthodoxy does not claim such a charge for itself.

HOW that magisterial charge is executed and whether or not there's room for discussion on points of doctrine/truth and their expression is what we are really talking about here.

Dogma is a manner of defining that which is already recognized as truth. It is not some super-Truth or hyper-Truth that trumps all other truths. The truth of revelation is the truth.

The Catholic Church says that the petrine ministry, the power and authority of the office, is of divine origin. Protestants and Orthodox say that is a load of crap.

But that idea certainly can be drawn from a reading of scripture.

I'd certainly like to see the basis in Scripture from which one can assert without fear of contradiction that the conciliar path is the ONLY path...

Perhaps you are not seeing my point. The problem we see is that the Pope grants the Eastern Catholics to maintain Orthodox dogmatic theology, which contradicts Rome's dogmas. It seems to us, through cause and effect, that the priority is not in the theology but in the authority.

It is you rather than the Orthodox who sound like the Protestant fundamentalist -on the basis of scripture indeed! As if the position you advocate even existed in either early post-apostolic Christianity or scripture._________________________[1] There was nothing corresponding to even the level of Metropolitan Bishop until the Council of Nicea in AD 325. An outline of the usual picture was given here; http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,42259.msg694815.html#msg694815

"But we say that we know our God from His operations, But do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, But His essence remains beyond our reach." -St. Basilhttp://www.voskrese.info/spl/basil234.html

His essence and His energies are not two separate things. Not even St. Gregory goes that far...

M.

St. Gregory writes:

"According to the true faith of God's Church which by His grace we hold, God possess inherent energy that makes Him manifest and is in this respect distinct from His essence..." (Philokalia: The Complete Texts, Vol. 4, p. 411)

IF they were indeed...in reality...two separate things then you would actually have a created reality in the energies...

M.

St. Gregory continues:

"Because those diseased in soul with Akindynos's delusions say that the energy that is distinct from God's essence is created, they conclude that God's creative power is created. For it is impossible to act and create without an energy, just as it is impossible to exist without existence. Therefore just as one cannot say that God's existence is created and at the same time affirm that His being is uncreated, so also one cannot say that God's energy is created and at the same time affirm that his power to act and create is uncreated" (ibid, p. 412)

The Catholic Church says that the petrine ministry, the power and authority of the office, is of divine origin. Protestants and Orthodox say that is a load of crap.

But that idea certainly can be drawn from a reading of scripture.

I'd certainly like to see the basis in Scripture from which one can assert without fear of contradiction that the conciliar path is the ONLY path...

M.

The notion that a universal papacy "can be drawn from a reading of scripture" -though inferred and/or claimed enough among amateur apologists- is an anachronistic myth held by not a single major contemporary scholar. No informed major historian today believes such an office even existed in the earliest centuries of Christianity, even in Rome -yes that includes intellectually honest and/or responsible contemporary Roman Catholic historians.[1]

The *actual* petrine ministry as it was understood in earliest Christianity is another thing entirely. The earliest witnesses conceived of it as operative in all bishops, as St. Cyprian and other early witnesses and all Orthodox writers who address it maintain. This historic early view of the petrine ministry in fact has continued unbroken after the Schism and to this present day. It is amateur Roman Catholic apologists who here as elsewhere wish to maintain a POV which was actually unknown, unheard of, and unspoken of in earliest Christianity even in Rome (I use the phrase amateur Roman Catholic apologists to demarcate this group -so furiously active on the internet and in print- from academic Roman Catholic historians and theologians who these days sound more like the mainstream scholars on such matters).

I'd certainly like to see the basis in Scripture from which one can assert without fear of contradiction that the conciliar path is the ONLY path...

M.

It is you rather than the Orthodox who sound like the Protestant fundamentalist -on the basis of scripture indeed! As if the position you advocate even existed in either early post-apostolic Christianity or scripture._________________________[1] There was nothing corresponding to even the level of Metropolitan Bishop until the Council of Nicea in AD 325. An outline of the usual picture was given here; http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,42259.msg694815.html#msg694815

PRECISELY!!

You got yours about the same way we got ours.

Thanks for making it so apparent.

Precisely; the difference is that all of the above fits in quite nicely with the historic view of the Orthodox regarding the offices of the Church but very poorly with medieval to second millennium Roman Catholic views.

(A) RC insists that offices above local bishop to have been instituted by divine right from the beginning, which is obscurantist historical nonsense no major contemporary scholar accepts, as described in detail above.

(B) Orthodox by contrast accept St. Justin's argument that all developments of office beyond the local bishop are not divinely ordained or necessary to the Church although they are justifiably adopted for pragmatic reasons; this is essentially the same thing writers like Fr. Laurent Cleenwercke mean when they distinguish functional from ontological primacy ("ontological" in the sense of supposedly corresponding to actual divine mandate rather than just for practical reasons) in the Church. Functional primacy is fine -for purely human/practical reasons, so long as it does not violate the necessity of the Church to be of the same mind on the issue.

1 Cor 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."

It is historically obscurantist to claim a divinely instituted office actually existed from the beginning which looked anything like the papacy even of the 4th century -absolutely unbelievable from an academic perspective without committing intellectual suicide. Dissenting Roman Catholics holding a more Conciliar perspective have argued this point very well. This fits in just fine with what the Orthodox Church believes and practices.

Meanwhile we still have amateur Roman Catholic apologists flooding the internet with "proofs" from the Gospel of Matthew etc. ad nauseum as supposedly buttressing what amounts to historical nonsense. Go figure!

The Catholic Church says that the petrine ministry, the power and authority of the office, is of divine origin. Protestants and Orthodox say that is a load of crap.

But that idea certainly can be drawn from a reading of scripture.

I'd certainly like to see the basis in Scripture from which one can assert without fear of contradiction that the conciliar path is the ONLY path...

M.

The notion that a universal papacy "can be drawn from a reading of scripture" -though inferred and/or claimed enough among amateur apologists- is an anachronistic myth held by not a single major contemporary scholar. No informed major historian today believes such an office even existed in the earliest centuries of Christianity, even in Rome -yes that includes intellectually honest and/or responsible contemporary Roman Catholic historians.[1]

The *actual* petrine ministry as it was understood in earliest Christianity is another thing entirely. The earliest witnesses conceived of it as operative in all bishops, as St. Cyprian and other early witnesses and all Orthodox writers who address it maintain. This historic early view of the petrine ministry in fact has continued unbroken after the Schism and to this present day. It is amateur Roman Catholic apologists who here as elsewhere wish to maintain a POV which was actually unknown, unheard of, and unspoken of in earliest Christianity even in Rome (I use the phrase amateur Roman Catholic apologists to demarcate this group -so furiously active on the internet and in print- from academic Roman Catholic historians and theologians who these days sound more like the mainstream scholars on such matters).

I'd certainly like to see the basis in Scripture from which one can assert without fear of contradiction that the conciliar path is the ONLY path...

M.

It is you rather than the Orthodox who sound like the Protestant fundamentalist -on the basis of scripture indeed! As if the position you advocate even existed in either early post-apostolic Christianity or scripture._________________________[1] There was nothing corresponding to even the level of Metropolitan Bishop until the Council of Nicea in AD 325. An outline of the usual picture was given here; http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,42259.msg694815.html#msg694815

PRECISELY!!

You got yours about the same way we got ours.

Thanks for making it so apparent.

Precisely; the difference is that all of the above fits in quite nicely with the historic view of the Orthodox regarding the offices of the Church but very poorly with medieval to second millennium Roman Catholic views.

(A) RC insists that offices above local bishop to have been instituted by divine right from the beginning, which is obscurantist historical nonsense no major contemporary scholar accepts, as described in detail above.

(B) Orthodox by contrast accept St. Justin's argument that all developments of office beyond the local bishop are not divinely ordained or necessary to the Church although they are justifiably adopted for pragmatic reasons; this is essentially the same thing writers like Fr. Laurent Cleenwercke mean when they distinguish functional from ontological primacy ("ontological" in the sense of supposedly corresponding to actual divine mandate rather than just for practical reasons) in the Church. Functional primacy is fine -for purely human/practical reasons, so long as it does not violate the necessity of the Church to be of the same mind on the issue.

1 Cor 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."

It is historically obscurantist to claim a divinely instituted office actually existed from the beginning which looked anything like the papacy even of the 4th century -absolutely unbelievable from an academic perspective without committing intellectual suicide. Dissenting Roman Catholics holding a more Conciliar perspective have argued this point very well. This fits in just fine with what the Orthodox Church believes and practices.

Meanwhile we still have amateur Roman Catholic apologists flooding the internet with "proofs" from the Gospel of Matthew etc. ad nauseum. Go figure!

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

But, Peter, the whole purpose of a creed is to state one's beliefs! Why would someone believe something, but purposefully refuse to say it at the proper time? This makes no sense. This is as if to say that confessing one's faith is unimportant. I think that is very wrong.

If I were RC, then I would always say the 'filioque' because it would be a dogma for me. Why would I hide my own dogmatic beliefs?

With regard to our ability (or lack thereof) to fully know God, our limitation is not one of "nature" per se, as if by virtue of being not-God we'd somehow explode or something if we fully knew God. Rather, God would have us know Him as fully as possible, even if it were possible to fully know Him. The hold back is that He is eternal and infinite and we are not. No matter how long eternity lasts, we, as finite beings, will never fully know the Infinite God. Otherwise God would be finite - HUGE - but finite.

With regard to the OP: I don't know if this was already shared, but St Isaac the Syrian was part of the Church that was officially Nestorian (separated from us at the Council of Ephesus), but he is still regarded as a canonical Orthodox saint. Since there is at least one "non-Orthodox" person who is an Orthodox saint, it is impossible to know what God does outside the Orthodox Church. As Christ said, "with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

OK, here's the Orthodox perspective: notice how we talk a lot about 'Rome.' For us, Rome was one of a number of ancient cities with Apostolic communities. There was even an order: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. When the Schism occurred, only one of the churches left... Rome.

This is how we see it. So, the dissenter is the one who left, not the rest who remained.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

So I am not sure how to respond to this comment which indicates, apparently, that you think I've said that the magisterial charge, and the teaching of those with the power and authority to interpret the truths of revelation...don't exist.

All I can say to you is that I never said what it appears to me that you are saying I said by your question.

Denying the existence of the magisterium in RC teaching is bizarre, simply because there isn't an office with a desk called 'the magisterium.' It clearly exists, just as we say here in the US that there is an 'Obama Administration' even though no such thing as that 'exists' as a separate office.

Such a contention is clearly dodgy. Perhaps a 'red herring' to stray off the earlier point?

So I am not sure how to respond to this comment which indicates, apparently, that you think I've said that the magisterial charge, and the teaching of those with the power and authority to interpret the truths of revelation...don't exist.

All I can say to you is that I never said what it appears to me that you are saying I said by your question.

Mary, my sense is that we Orthodox see the Magisterium of Rome as the 'lynch pin' of Roman Catholic teachings. There is a single point of reference, a single authority, for all teachings.

This has given the RCC the ability to conduct major changes in theology and practice in a very brief period of time, such as the Novo Ordo, which the Orthodox Church simply could never do even if a majority of the bishops resolved to do just that. Our diversification of authority, through the notion of common Apostolic succession to all bishops, prevents such changes.

For this reason, we tend to look at RCC tradition as a dictate of the Magisterium. All saints, all writings, all teachings come through this single entity, whereas Orthodox teachings come from a consensus perspective: we don't have a single interpretive office.

Now, there may be particulars in how that single office conducts business, and I imagine that given the size and history of the Vatican makes even small changes rather difficult, but they are certainly easier to accomplish than getting a room full of Russians and Greeks to sit down and agree to anything!

Father,

I do understand what you are saying and appreciate the impact that vision would have on those outside of the Church.

But I must add this to what you have said. The very fact that the Novus Ordo and many many of the changes that are comprised today, by the normative Roman rite, actually were implemented on the orders of various bishop's delegates in committee and not by the papal office nor even the documents from a general council, ought to make it plain as day that there is a fearsome amount of power in the office of bishop in the Catholic Church.

The truth is that there is no one single locus of magisterial teaching. There is indeed one single locus for collecting the documents and teachings of the ages, coming from councils and synodal meetings and curial texts so that it becomes that much more efficient to devise a catechism or a code of canons...but to think that the contents of those tomes come from one single point on some triangle of a hierarchy is simply a delusion.

But the magisterial charge was given to the bishops and that is where the locus of power in the Church remains to this day. The source of the petrine authority may indeed be divine, but the successful daily and pedestrian exercise of that authority is absolutely dependent upon the good will of Catholic bishops all over the world.

Short of an act of God there is nothing that can break the power of a bishop.

In that spirit, I believe that the cracking open of the sexual scandal in the Church is such and act of divine providence. For all of the ensuing distress, I believe there will be great good emerge from it. God help those who have been accused falsely however. Lord have mercy.

Without that understanding then it is impossible to grasp the glory of the Catholic Church. It is also impossible to really understand and forgive those who bear the magisterial ugliness that too often resides within.

He's taking a sentence completely out of context and making of it a non-truth. It certainly gives the impression of hair-splitting and pot-stirring. And I think he knows better. So, he really should put his hair in the pot, heat, stir, and serve. What you'll get is a bowl full of nonsense. See Mary's comment above.

No one ever denied the existence of the Magisterium. It's just that it doesn't have a physical address and all that goes along with that. C'mon, now!

Denying the existence of the magisterium in RC teaching is bizarre, simply because there isn't an office with a desk called 'the magisterium.' It clearly exists, just as we say here in the US that there is an 'Obama Administration' even though no such thing as that 'exists' as a separate office.

Such a contention is clearly dodgy. Perhaps a 'red herring' to stray off the earlier point?